starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
StarCraft Wiki talk:Canon policy
Novels I would like to suggest that the Blizzard-authorized novels be moved up with the Blizzard-published ones, or at the very least above Retribution and Insurrection. The various novels, while not directly published by Blizzard, were written under Blizzard's supervision and approved by them prior to release. On the other hand, Blizzard had no involvement at all in Retribution and Inusrrection and merely allowed the companies that created them to do so. And, of course, Metzen's said that the novels retelling the story of the game at least are intended to be the official version. -- Dark T Zeratul 08:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Blizzard has little to no oversight over several novels, actually. I don't think there was anything beyond surface oversight for Liberty's Crusade, Shadow of the Xel'Naga and Speed of Darkness. In any event, until I can get SCLegacy's copy of the Lore Interview again (their site is down), I only have half of Metzen's answer. (He gave the other half in the Q&A session, which isn't on Gamespot's video.) So the short answer is that I can make little change until I can see that video again. PsiSeveredHead 11:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Lord of Ascension from StarCraft Legacy might be able to get me a copy of the video. If so, I can use that as a source. But it depends on how long it takes him to get the copy to me. PsiSeveredHead 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC) If the StarCraft Anthology is similar to the Warcraft Archieve then we'll probably get an outline of the formation of these novels anyway. As for Blizzard's involvement, I'm guessing that at least in Liberty's Crusade there was a degree of involvement. Metzen generally set a format of novel development ever since the first Blizzard novel (Warcraft: Day of the Dragon). Chapters are submitted one at a time for proof reading. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if Shadow of the Xel'Naga and 'Speed of Darkness' were excepted from the process, as it was said in the interview that at the time of their writing, Blizzard generally wanted to avoid the 'big questions', hence producing side stories. Still, I guess they could go above Insurrection and Retribution, although they don't seem to contradict canon as far as I can tell.--Hawki 06:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Good News ... and Bad Someone put the long version up on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoVYlFOrhvc and on Veoh: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v9347468w6R2neF?searchId=945800622429384595&rank=2 Bad news: Saturday night is not a good time for me. I'm basically going to be busy, possibly until Wednesday evening. However, I'll dig through it, get the quote, and shuffle the categories appropriately. PsiSeveredHead 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Chris Metzen and Andy Chambers on Lore Questioner: Will you be referencing any of the character development like, say, Queen of Blades towards the ending in any of the upcoming games like StarCraft II... do you kind of say the books were the books and the game is the game? Chris Metzen: These books specifically are kind of the definitive take in my mind, which means we got a chance in Queen of Blades to show you a lot of scenes we could not show in the game. When does Raynor actually meet these guys? When does sic Tassadar and Zeratul actually hook up and meet? That's a huge part of the game that we never show. How does Tassadar, this Executor of the Protoss, this really talented, driven guy, get jumped into this whacked cult that his bosses hate and by the end of it become this Twilight Messiah and take down the monster alien of the galaxy. How did that all happen? We never actually touch any of it in the game. I don't even know if it occurred to me that we didn't when we published it... talk about a galaxy-sized hole. So, the books have been our chance to fill in some of those gaps, and try and tell more the story, make it make sense more sic. But of course, like Liberty's Crusade wasn't quite as full. There were events in the game that we didn't cover in that book, but the soul of the book is true, like the idea that there were small interaction with Raynor and Kerrigan that we didn't see in the game. A lot of times, so we're trying to tell a story, and it's a wargame, which was difficult to do back in the day, thus our pretty new story mode, but the idea was that you couldn't always get all the beats in that you wanted, even the beats that really make it make sense in a linear fashion and from a thematic standpoint. We actually didn't always get to say everything we needed to say. Surprisingly, the game held up pretty well, like you know, what it was in the day, we're still very very proud of it, but it's almost like despite the technology, we always had a lot of frustrations... we were not able to get everything in, so I guess what I'm trying to say with way too many words is the fact that the books are our chance at redemption and telling the whole tale, so my hope is that they do it well. Andy Chambers: Well, as I mentioned earlier on, we're also taking the opportunity to take characters who may be appearing in the books and put them into the game of StarCraft II, like Matt Horner, as an example, never appeared in StarCraft, but he's there in Queen of Blades... he's a pretty cool guy, we should really use that character. That's all part of trying to make everything together into this grand universe ideal, which I what I trying to shoot for. It's like it doesn't matter how obscure the reference is, if it's out there its got some role that crosses over to the rest. I'm not a big fan myself of "well, they're in the novels, they have nothing to do with the game"... It's a big living breathing universe ... every time you put a brick on the wall it becomes a part of the universe. PsiSeveredHead 02:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Retcon Article I just had an idea concerning lore, one which I picked up from wowwiki. This is the idea of a retcon article, a list of changes made in the series so that people can access old lore and, if nesecary, choose what to consider canon and not. Take the Korhal article for example, in which it would be stated that nukes were launched from Tarsonis, killing 5 million. Going by more recent lore provided in Uprising and Liberty's Crusade, this would be changed to Battlecruisers and 35 million respectively. However, in the trivia section the original lore could be mentioned and/or a link to the retcon list provided. Granted, I don't think that every discrepency should be taken as a retcon, dates provided in Uprising being examples (eg. millenia, seven year Guild War). I guess its' really instinct as to what's an error and what's a retcon. Anyway, just an idea.--Hawki 23:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC) The main (only?) problem I would have with this is... how do I know it's a retcon and not just an error? Metzen has made official retcons in the Warcraft universe, so I'm not sure if the retcon references at WOWwiki are all referring to something said by a Blizzard employee, or just pretty much any change. I do know they have a specific article on "Chris Metzen on Lore" but that only refers to the draenei retcon. PsiSeveredHead 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Hmm...good point. As for wowwiki, it pretty much goes with whatever latest version of lore is presented. Still, I've begun to take the stance that errors are just as likely as retcons-if one takes the ToD novelisation as 100% canon, you may as well say that goblins and gnomes didn't fight in the Second War. Guess it's up to personal preference.--Hawki 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) The Story So Far Blizzard posted "the Story So Far" at http://www.starcraft2.com/features/storysofar.xml and there's a few retcons in it (included in previous novels) such as Artanis' and Duke's ranks at various times. Note that Zeratul had green eyes in StarCraft: Queen of Blades, and now in StarCraft II he has ... green eyes. Interesting. There'll probably be debate (or just apathy) until Blizzard puts out a timeline or something along those lines.Blizzard Entertainment Staff. 2007-11-21. The Story so Far... Part 1: StarCraft. Blizzard Entertainment. Accessed 2007-11-21. Fifth Tier? I followed the link to Oong, also exploring the rest of the archived material. Not only are there other characters mentioned, but also extra info pertaining to units, organizations, etc. It's something that I've been wondering about for awhile, how to treat info found in previous builds and SC: Ghost. Individual articles are fine, a statement that they're of dubious canon status clearing things up. Pre-existing units however, is another matter. Info is given on the Ghost PA profile in the early info for instance; while the PA profile itself is canon (being found on the Ghost's battle.net page, there's no mention of the value given. I was thinking that this information could be incorporated and soured into articles provided it doesn't conflict with higher canon levels, such actions already having been applied to units such as the Vulture and Siege Tank. Still, thought it best to get feedback on the idea first.--Hawki 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC) : I just like to note that if information is added to an in-universe section, it should be written and presented in an in-universe format. Anything that can't be done that way is best allocated to a separate 'Development/Pre-release' section. Meco 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I agree with Meco on this. Even though the information comes from battle.net, it's been removed, so the canon status is dubious. If it interferes with something that was later present on the site, then the newer information should hold the higher status. Isn't the (old) Ghost's PA value "at least 250"?PsiSeveredHead 12:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Obviously all official material takes precedence over unreleased/cancelled material, but considering that little of it conflicts with higher material, it hasn't turned out to be an issue. The PA value is given on the old site, but isn't given on the new one. As such, the PA profile itself is canon, but the value is not necessarily. Still, since the value doesn't conflict with any higher canon, it can be incorporated IMO.--Hawki 12:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC) It kind of does, actually. It conflicts with the Nova novel. (There, Ghosts are 5-6, which is twice as high (and then times 100). PsiSeveredHead 02:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC) : I've noticed that in the recently edited articles we've had to add notes like this came from the StarCraft Beta and thus is of dubious canonity. Perhaps we should make a note of that in the official canon policy, so in the articles we can cite like StarCraft Beta and dispense with the awkward disclaimer? Meco 01:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)) Hmm... or maybe a template? Kind of like spoiler? I think lots of people don't look at the references. PsiSeveredHead 02:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC) : I've whipped up Template:AmbigCanon that has the content needed for the purpose. We can work on the look and feel as we go. Meco 05:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Recent Edits I have a good idea as to what's coming, so I'll explain myself here. Way I see it, I have a number of options: *Move dates and years. Unfortunatly, this ammounts to an edit war. *Walk away (tempting, but I'm not too keen on letting what is incorrect info IMO be left up after editing for so long). *Found a new wiki (too much effort) *Accomadate (hmm) So yeah, accomadation's been chosen. As much as I disagree with the dates provided in Heaven's Devils, it's become clear that sticking to what I consider to be the genuine ones isn't an option. So, all I/we can do is place the date discrepencies in the timeline articles and remove distinct dates in articles such as ones for characters where they contradict, bar mentions in notes sections. This fits with the new canon policy and the removal of tiered canon. If we're not opperating in tiers, then we should let users decide for themselves which are the legitimate facts. Also standardized referencing. Know this goes against what's written in the policy, but I'd rather keep it standard and everything else the same, rather than setting a precedent that would cause our citation index to fall apart.--Hawki 07:56, April 13, 2010 (UTC) :Please take into account that a lot of old dates were either derived from speculation or have been clearly superseded. As a result, some of the edits were unneeded. We don't really need to be taking away Alexei Stukov's date of birth, for instance, since the timing of the beginning of the Brood War is clear. (The month of his birth... not so much.) A lot of information you're listing as "contradiction" has in fact been "retconned".) :We need to state where we're getting derived information from. It's not fair to expect a visitor to go delving into a source to find the specific text reference(s) for how we got a date, and sometimes there's calculations and so forth involved as well (so we can't just direct them to a page and text reference). It's also a good way to weed out speculation. ::Where you got some of the specific dates used to drive me up the wall, too. There were so many, asking you how you got all of them wasn't practical. And many of those dates have been superseded (but in an indirect way). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 15:11, April 13, 2010 (UTC) ::So please don't put them back. Engaging in an edit war over nearly every year in the timeline will cause nothing but problems. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 22:24, April 13, 2010 (UTC) You know, an edit war would have been wholesale reversion. What I tried was accomadation and acknowledgement of discrepencies as per the tennants of the policy. But no matter. I've had enough. If you're apllying an Animal Farm policy, then this needs to be stated in what ammounts for 'policy' we have now. Or, I guess, what you have. It's obvious that in light of the removal of the old tiered system, there's no objectivity, there's simply one version of the truth, and the idea of all sources being equally valid is just a facade, dates or not. Now while this one version, no acknowledgement of discrepencies (or, at least the discrepencies that go against your ideology) modus operandi would work well in the world of 1984, it doesn't leave much room for anyone else. Discussion failed. Accomadation failed. So, in the interest of not being taken to the Ministry of Love, all I can say is have fun running your little kingdom. In the old days, we were all bound by what ammounted to law. But with that disintergrated and any edits subject to a higher whim, it's become clear that there's no longer a place for me. Congratulations. You have free reign.--Hawki 22:30, April 13, 2010 (UTC) Branching Variants Right below a rant. Go figure... Anyway, I've been going over articles in the context of Wings of Liberty and Browder's comments on how choices are entirely up to the player. Since that pretty much includes everything after Zero-Hour at this point in time, that leaves us with the dilemma of either being really careful in editing or simply leaving out info. Neither option is particuarly appealing. However, using Wookiepedia as a source of inspiration, I may have an idea: Wookiepedia faces the same issue from sources such as Knights of the Old Republic, where the order of events or even what events occur are up to the player. In these cases, a template is used which declares how "this section assumes 100% completion of x-note that the events of this section may or may not be canon (can be seen in use here for example). This allows the in-universe style to be kept, but also reminds the reader that it's up to the player how this progresses. As WoL has a set ending and all the missions can be played, I was thinking it might be wise to implement a similar template (pretty much a copy paste), which would allow us to keep our in-universe style, but also be wary about making declarations without discetion. Thoughts?--Hawki 13:19, April 29, 2010 (UTC) I disagree that many missions are going to be "discarded". While there are branch missions, many if not most missions will be "required". Alas, since the game isn't out yet, and we don't have a complete mission tree, we don't really know what's canon and what's not yet. But yes, the template is a good idea, as long as it's keeping the branching information separate. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 13:23, April 29, 2010 (UTC) Did I say discarded? Meh. Anyway, at this point in time, it seems that all the missions we've seen so far post-Zero-Hour are branched, except for perhaps Zeratul's, as I'm guessing that's a major plot point. And if info gets back onto what we know to be certain, we can easily copy and paste outside the template section.--Hawki 13:48, April 29, 2010 (UTC) OK, been toying with the idea and keeping in mind Browder's statement on branching canon. That, and how it's seemingly impossible to actually get a 100% completion on a single playthrough makes me wonder if it can be applied. Still, if it can, got a few ideas that could be incorporated into the canon policy: -The template I mentioned earlier can be pretty much a copy-paste. The wording I think, could go like This section assumes 100% completion of x. The order of the following events, and even if they occur, are up to the player and are ''not endorsed by Blizzard Entertainment.'' So yeah-like the one on Wookiepedia, but reinforces that Blizzard does not deal with the branching info.--Hawki 13:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC) I think you just lost me there. What sort of articles would assume 100% completion? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:44, May 7, 2010 (UTC) -Where the template can't be applied is where instead of just optional missions, some are mutually exclusive (guessing that's why not all missions can be played on a single playthrough), same as with Birds of War and Ground Zero. Where this is the case, nothing definate should be said that favours one over the other. -The question exists as to what order the missions are dealt with-it's one thing to assume that Raynor heads to both Monlyth and Agria as per the 100% completion designation, but the order of these events is something else entirely. I think a guideline of sorts can be developed, in that it's OK to say in the article that "after Agria, Raynor went to Meinhoff" (which distinctly happened after Agria) but not OK to say that "afte Meinhoff, Raynor went to Monlyth." The sections are best kept in seperate paragraphs, with no mention of which came first, e.g.: "...and on Meinhoff, Raynor saved the day." (New paragraph): "On Monlyth, Raynor retrieved an artifact, etc."--Hawki 13:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC) This is why I wanted to stick to what Browder said. In effect, the Evacuation of Agria is not canon (assuming there's a conflict) and doesn't get mentioned again. As a result, that mission should only be mentioned where relevant (eg articles about Ariel Hanson). So, under what circumstances would it even matter what order the Agria and Monlyth missions took place in? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:44, May 7, 2010 (UTC) Such a guideline can help us avoid making such statements. However, the question remains as to what order we present the points in. While I'd say for instance that it would make sense to go to Agria first, if only for the fact that it wouldn't be able to hold out against the zerg for long (which would theoretically prevent 100% completion), but that's subjective. Granted, such a policy might not be needed, as the policy states how the order is subjective (similar to the ambiguous timing template), but I think it might be wise to standardize the order, so that at least the characters' biographies follow the same events in the same order. We may be able to get a guideline of sorts from the cinematics DVD-it may give us some insight into mission order, which is perhaps as close to Blizzard canon as we can get. Barring that, a list can be made. I won't be able to get WoL as soon as it's released, so I can't react on the spur of the moment, but of what missions have been seen so far, I'd place them in the following order: *Liberation Day *The Outlaws *Zero-Hour *The Evacuation of Agria *Outbreak *Smash and Grab *Devil's Playground *Welcome to the Jungle *The Dig *Whispers of Doom *The Moebius Factor Hardly definate, but just my take for now.--Hawki 13:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC) There actually is a list of missions by number (for instance, I think Whispers of Doom is #11) but... I guess I'm just confused. I need an example of when you would have to include different variants in the same article. Even with articles like Second War (or Second Great War, or what have you) you'd just leave out the non-canon stuff. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:44, May 7, 2010 (UTC) Anyway, just some ideas that can be worked into the canon policy. Early days yet, but at the least, what has to be decided now IMO is whether the template or some equivalent is applied or not. If not, then articles such as that for the Tal'darim will have to be rewritten, as it gives events as occurring distinctly that may or may not be up to the player.--Hawki 13:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC) References How many other talk pages have references? These are probably needed here though.